Lambert here: It’s interesting to see what Varoufakis has come up with now, and I read the DiEM 25 Manifesto. I’m not getting a lot of clarity on “Who, Whom”; that is, who, exactly, is preventing Europe from being democratized?

By Mathew D. Rose, a freelance journalist in Berlin

“The wind of change is blowing through this continent. Whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact.” These words of former British Prime Minister Harald Macmillan in 1960 with regard to Africa are just as applicable to Europe today. It is incontrovertible that a change is not only coming, it is already here. If this is a positive development depends much upon what ensues.

On the one side we have the ultra-right nationalist parties, the most prominent being the Front National in France and UKIP in the United Kingdom, which have not yet had the political breakthrough that was feared. In Scandinavia and the Netherlands there are a number of nationalist conservative parties that are strongly influencing the policies of their nations. More salient are Fidesz in Hungary and the Law and Justice party in Poland, both of whom are in government.

On the other hand there are leftist parties, such as the newly elected government in Portugal, as well as a surging Podemos is Spain. Add to this an increasing leftist awakening in Britain’s Labour Party trying to wrest power from Tony Blair’s venal votaries. I am intentionally excluding Syriza in Greece for the time being, yet believe we have not heard the last from the Greek people.

Last but not least there are the nationalist governments of Catalonia and Scotland, representing a broad political spectrum. There are many more parties, groups and movements forming in Europe, all of which I cannot mention within the framework of this piece, who are together altering the political map of the EU — for better or for worse.

All may not bear the label “nationalist”, but they all have something in common: their resistance to the political programme of the EU, better said, pitting the welfare of their own populace against the hegemony of Germany and its brutal neo-liberal blueprint.

A case in point is the issue of the refusal of many east European EU member states, which are unwilling or not happy about accepting refugees currently fleeing to Europe. Explanations, such as a lack of contact with foreigners or racism, doubtlessly play a role. More important is the fact that most citizens of these nations have been the victims of Germany’s policy of austerity for the EU. They have not experienced the prosperity that was supposed to be part of EU membership, unlike a small corrupt elite in their nation. They have lost faith in the EU, distrustful of any new measures coming from Brussels, correctly fearing a worsening of their own plight. Why should they welcome destitute refugees, when they themselves are destitute, with little perspective except migrating to the wealthy nations of the EU often to work for pittance, leaving behind their families, communities and culture? They too have become refugees, wandering through Europe in an attempt to keep body and soul together. I do not wish to be an apologist for xenophobia, but it is a label that often conceals relevant issues. Ambivalence, scepticism and outright antagonism towards the EU have become ubiquitous through large swathes of the populations of member states.

Enter a most unexpected figure. Most politicians who suffer a crushing defeat either fade away or lead an emotional, often irrational struggle to vindicate their reputation. Yanis Varoufakis, Greece’s former Finance Minister, has instead started a remarkable offensive against the institutions that are responsible not only for one of the most nefarious political and financial events in the history of the European Union, but also for a perversion of the European dream.

On 9 February Varoufakis launched the movement “Democracy in Europe Movement 25” (DiEM 25) in Berlin, the capital of his principle enemy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkWwUG0p89Y&feature=iv&src_vid=cd4Owt05-ZM&annotation_id=annotation_767904811) . In its manifesto (http://diem25.org/) DiEM 25 discerns a rather stark alternative facing the EU: “The choice between authentic democracy and insidious disintegration.” In his speech at the launch of DiEM 25 Varoufakis went further, claiming that Europe was on the verge of a “postmodern version of the 1930’s” with the recrudescence of nationalism, extremism and racism resulting in dissolution of the European Union. Responsible for the crisis according to Varoufakis and the other speakers at Berlin’s Volksbahne is a phalanx of EU politicians and their accomplices in national governments together with financial and industrial conglomerates. The victim is the demos, the people, of Europe. Not only is democracy being sacrificed at the altar of an “opaque decision-making process” of the EU government, but also the social and material welfare, as well as the health of the EU’s populace in the name of austerity.

Probably Varoufakis knows better than the other speakers, which included leftist members of the European Parliament of various parties, activists from Spain, among others, what lies behind the forces that rule the EU. If one has followed his interviews since he resigned as Finance Minister, he has provided explicit glimpses into the abyss, be it in fragments. Things look much worse than many of us feared. The EU is not beset by chaos, or just kicking the can down the road, but has a clear plan for destruction of democracy and social gains of post-war Europe.

In its manifesto DiEM 25 sees the European Union member states confronted with only two alternatives: a “retreat into the cocoon of our nations-states or the surrender to the Brussels democracy-free zone”? DiEM 25 offers a third path: re-democratising Europe.

One wonders, if this analysis is too fatalistic with regards to nationalism. Probably one of the great surges of democratisation in the EU in this millennium was Scotland’s plebiscite. The vote may have been lost, but Scottish society has as a result been politicised, especially in those classes that had long lost their political voice. Of course the Scots could now go on and campaign for the re-democratising of the United Kingdom, whose politics make those of the EU look humane, or they can achieve independence — and it is around the corner — and serve as a tangible example of a Europe of the demos. The same process seems to be playing itself out in Catalonia.

Probably the most sanguine moments of the DiEM 25 evening in Berlin were the speakers from Spain’s recently elected anti-austerity, activist municipal governments of Barcelona and La Coruña. These victories are the result of political processes that may not be saving the rest of Europe, but are certainly providing a palpable respite for many of the cities’ denizens from the ravages of neo-liberalism.

DiEM 25’s concept is the creation of a very, very broad pan-European coalition of democrats, a political movement, not a party, to “forge a common agenda, and then find ways of connecting it with local communities and at the regional and national level.” This coalition, so Varoufakis, should contain “radical democrats, left wing democrats, social democrats, green democrats and liberal democrats”; all those who wish to put the demos back in democracy. How broad this coalition should be was demonstrated by the speakers from Germany. Most are elements of the status quo, not the forces of change.

Such an extensive coalition may well be necessary, as the 19 “aspirations” of DiEM 25’s manifesto not only entails a re-democratisation of Europe, but a political revolution. Its goal of creating a new, democratic constitution for the European Union is to be achieved by 2025, thus the 25 in the organisation’s name. The first step has already been defined: “Full transparency in decision-making.” This includes live-streaming sessions of important EU bodies, such as the EU Council and the Euro group among others; the publishing of the European Central Bank’s minutes and documents pertinent to crucial negotiations (e.g. trade-TTIP, “bailout” loans, Britain’s status); and, a comprehensive register of EU lobbyists. Following a number of intermediate steps 2025 is to see the “Enactment of the decisions of the Constitutional Assembly.”

At the conclusion of the event in Berlin members of the audience fielded questions. One of the first was how to proceed from here and now? Varoufakis’s answer was to organise assemblies for democracy in Europe’s cities, which seemed a bit vague for Germans, a nation of panglossians, where all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Varoufakis brought together many impressive intellectuals from throughout Europe to thrash out DiEM 25’s priorities. Germany’s intellectuals however are seen by many here as of doubtful integrity and being too close to power, as most of them are employed or financed by the state or have joined the predominant political parties to enhance their careers. The major German unions are considered more a force of repression, not emancipation. The wind of change in Germany is currently at best a slight breeze. In other nations that are bearing the brunt of German hegemony things are looking very different.

Yanis Varoufakis is probably not a great pragmatist and during negotiations with the EU did little to help his own people. Maybe he never had a chance. Maybe he did not know how to use the one he had. On the other hand, he may end up being one of the great European political thinkers of this decade. What Varoufakis may not comprehend is that DiEM 25 will not lead the forces of change in Europe. The Europeans have had enough of “great leaders” like Merkel, Schäuble, Juncker, Cameron and all the others. Still, DiEM 25 may well be a major influence as the demos put itself back into democracy.

About Lambert Strether

Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of neoliberalism (“Because markets”). I don’t much care about the “ism” that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism razing it. I don’t much care, as long as the benefits are delivered.
To me, the key issue — and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me — is the tens of thousands of excess “deaths from despair,” as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics — even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton’s wars created — bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news flow — currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press — a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let’s call such voices “the left.” Volatility creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes all such programs, isn’t allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I’ve been blogging about it daily for fourteen years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.

You might be interested in the two part video interview in which Ignacio Escolar asked him some questions as he went to Madrid this week to present the DIEM 25 movement. Questions are edited to Spanish, but answers are English and thus easy to understand, and from the context the questions are really clear…

Thank you for this, I didn’t see this when I posted my comment below. V is significantly clearer in his scope in this interview.

However, there is something that cuts counter to the message of the post. I get the sense that he is arguing from the perspective of being a European. But the surge of national identity is a reaction to the complete integration of the EU with neoliberal policies. This helps explain why Syriza was willing to take exiting from the EU off the table quicker than Obama dumped single payer. Varoufakis is talking up local demos but is captured by the concept of a united Europe. I’m not sure those are compatible perspectives.

This helps explain why Syriza was willing to take exiting from the EU off the table quicker than Obama dumped single payer.

I understand the Greek Electorate wished by a large majority to remain part of the EU. It seems that dichotomy following was not well articulated.

Syrzia had small conflict. Regain sovereignty, while continuing to be a vassal of the Euro Zone.

And no path to return to the drachma, absent a huge, expensive and lengthy IT effort – many of which fail.

It would have been interesting if the Greeks had taken the German offer to exit from the Eurozone with the condition that the Germans pay for the bank system conversion back to the Drachma. I wonder how quickly the Germans would backed off from that large IT expense.

i always get that feeling about varoufakis – he is not a nationalist, but a democrat in the first sense. and he wants europe to be so too. i often wonder if europe has been such a high bastion of progress and privilege (and colonialism) that they really distain demos… regardless of the security it creates.

Change does not happen with 1 person, it happens one idea and one person at a time, building momentum. And when the tipping point is reached, the one in power reaps all the glory just because he/she is at the right place, at the right time, with the right package… I guess we humans just can’t live without heroes.

After the war, Germany and Japan got propped up by the US, creating a huge disequilibrium in Europe. Many dish the weak countries not thinking about how the US contributed to growing this discrepancy in productivity.

The common link in this global monetary disaster is giant US tentacles.

I agree that Varoufakis should be respected for his courage in stepping forward for Greece, even he was part and parcel of the deluded Syriza notion that they had some sort of leverage over north European governments.

But I think its going too far to blame the US for current problems in Europe. For all its faults, at least deep down the US (and UK) establishment knew austerity was a con and so never followed through all the way. Europe is hamstrung by what can only be considered a weird German led pathological obsession with a moralistic housekeeping notion of economics which has to potential to drag everyone (including the Germans) down with it. The Finns, where were even harder line that the Germans are now suffering badly in recession, they may well not be the only north European country to find out the logical end point of refusing to accept the logical requirement for fiscal expansion, public capital investment, and fiscal transfers within Europe.

From my understanding, the US supported the re-industrialization of Germany after the war… Had this industrialization effort been a little more spread out, perhaps Italy, Greece or Spain would be a little more competitive today…

The US might not be to blame but it played a significant role in getting all these countries in a pickle.

They certainly supported re-industrialisation (after initially testing the idea of the exact opposite), but the Marshall Plan was aimed at all the former combatants, although curiously the Plan did not include writing off UK war debts – something that crippled the UK economy for many years. It was often argued that Germany benefited from essentially starting from scratch in building up a modern economy – it had all the know-how for engineering, but wasn’t burdened with lots of out of date plant, unlike the UK and France.

There was a satirical film made in 1955 based on the premise that the Marshall Plan only helped warlike nations – it was called the Mouse that Roared, about a fictional mini-country which decided that the only way they could get aid from the US was to invade. So the notion that the Marshall Plan was a bit unfair goes back a long way. But I really don’t see what relevance it has to modern Europes problems.

IIRC, Varoufakis had a post here (he was still persona grata back then) that said that the US plan was for Germany to become the industrial powerhouse and for the rest of Europe to be the customers. There was a similar plan for Japan with the US being the customer.

According to Oliver Stone’s “Untold History”, FDR and Stalin agreed that Germany, having already caused two WW, must be de-industrialized and returned to the agricultural life. FDR’s death should be a national day of celebration in Germany. Truman was a classic anti-commie. Of course, the country he wanted to reinforce most was the country the Russians feared the most.

I think you are right. We were so freaked out by the devastation of WW2 that we were even freaked out by our own brutality. Leaving us in a quandry for the next 75 years. Because they could do to us what we had done to them. It was just a matter of time unless integration could be achieved. Our MIC ruled. We practiced palliative solutions and used Germany to keep some stability. The europeans never really liked us but they had no choice and that shows up now as we panic over the possibility of the EU trading with and becoming closer with Russia and Asia. Becoming democratic.

Many ordinary Americans would not mind if Europe dissolved NATO and created its own NEATO ( North East Atlantic Treaty Organization). That would be part of the independent-mindedness which would also show up in NEATO Europe deepening trade-and-culture ties with East Europe and Russia.

A Europe unwilling to distance itself from NATO is also unwilling to distance itself from a US-centric political and economic orientation. This is a choice which Europeans are free to make.

He’s giving up his leverage of credibility, which is in finance, by diddling in politics. Yves punched CalPERS mismanagers in the teeth by knowing what she was talking about. The Bank Whistleblowers United superfriends are talking politics, but within their frame of expertise.

DiEM25 looks like a fun club. I’d hang with Brian Eno. We could sing songs about freedom. I was a member of the Banana Splits club when I was a kid. But one credible local victory in a financially oppressed region is more important than a stageful of songsters for the revolution.

Interesting counter-argument with concrete theoretical backup on Diem25;s and Varoufakis’ “Democracy” and their misinformation concerning the very nature of the EU and the Transnational Elite, the role of the neo-nationalist movements in Europe and how to truly transcend pseudo-Democracy of Varoufakis’ type with a Democratic Community of Sovereign Nations. Worthwhile to read it even if you are not for radical change.

The author of the piece you link to, Takis Fotopoulos, is a proponent of a, utopian in my view, model of economic democracy for a stateless, marketless and moneyless economy.1 He believes, therefore, that the likes of Varoufakis and the DiEM25 movement he is spear-heading, won’t bring about democracy, as he defines it. Fine. He should say so, make his arguments and leave it at that.

Sadly, however, a close reading of the piece against the DiEM25 Manifesto reveals Fotopoulos’s trading in deceptions, misrepresentations, unsupported claims and outright lies.

For instance, he starts right off saying that, “there is no mention [in the DiEM25 Manifesto] of the various international economic institutions which are controlled by the Transnational Elite…namely the EU, WTO, IMF and World Bank, and their role – behind the scenes – in determining the EU’s decisions.” He then goes on to quote the Manifesto as naming “The EU’s] hit-squad inspectorates and the Troika.” First of all, is it really possible that Fotopoulos doesn’t know what institutions comprise the Troika (that is, the EU, the ECB)? Or is he betting that his intended audience doesn’t? Here’s the full statement in the Manifesto:

[The EU’s] hit-squad inspectorates and the Troika they formed together with unelected ‘technocrats’ from other international and European institutions. 2

Fotopoulos goes on in that vain, truncating, eliding, generalizing, speculating and mischaracterizing at will. I would have to write an analysis three times as long as the Fotopoulos hatchet job in order to address all such manipulations in the piece.

It’s worth mentioning that the piece is obviously aimed at an English-reading audience that doesn’t understand the basics of EU history and, in particular, its history since 2008. My wife assures me (she’s French) that Fotopoulos’s disinformation would jump off the screen to any European who reads English at that level unless they already agreed with his ideological position.

Slicing the writing of an author in order to extract some supposed (and much-needed) “contradiction” is an unfair way to argument. You read very selectively the related thesis of Diem25 and that of Fotopoulos in favor of a globalist liberal “leftist” perspective, because F., –if you read the para you mention, as a whole, and not selectively,– criticizes indeed the fact that Varoufakis’ “problem” and rationale with these institutions is that they comprise of…”unelected ‘technocrats’”, -and not the very nature of these institutions that inherently don’t give space for democratic decision making (political, economic and cultural, as Fotopoulos stresses). And this because, from their very nature, they impose concentration of economic and other power–this assumption has not much to do with the question whether their technocrats are “elected” or not as you simplistically miscontrue Fotopoulos’ thesis. This is why he stresses that the very issue of Varoufakis’ manifesto rationale is that it deliberately neglects….

>>…who the elites exercising economic power are and what their role in manipulating the decision-making process of the EU.
That is, there is not a single word about the Transnational Corporations (TNCs), particularly those of European origin like the European Round Table of Industrialists, which consists of the main Transnational Corporations (TNCs) running the EU.
Similarly, there is no mention of the various international economic institutions which are controlled by the Transnational Elite (i.e. the elites that are based in the G7 countries), namely the EU, WTO, IMF and World Bank, and their role – behind the scenes – in determining the EU’s decisions (economic and political as well as cultural).
In fact, the Manifesto does everything possible to stress the supposedly purely political nature of the “democracy” (which it mostly identifies with human rights!), as when it points out that “the European Union was an exceptional achievement…proving that it was possible to create a shared framework of human rights across a continent that was, not long ago, home to murderous chauvinism, racism and barbarity”.
Even when the Manifesto tries to allude to economic elites, again it does not put the blame on the vastly unequal distribution of economic power on which the EU elites thrive, but on the unequal distribution of political power which, supposedly, makes it possible for the economic elites to exercise their power <<

The rest of the “arguments” GlobalMisanthrope used is comprised of a series of unfortunate aphorisms and generalizations, which show the commentator has no clue of Fotopoulos’ work. e.g. As about democracy (which only has a meaning if it is also economic), this is not an “idea” someone came up with in a dreamy night. There is the historical tradition of autonomy/democracy which has been progressed through the social movements for centuries. F. has tried to advance it theoretically, with references to existing tendencies and according to the developments of our era (globalization etc.) into a new emancipatory project, the Inclusive Democracy project. All this came after loads of dialogue and contemplation with radical socialist libertarian thinkers and activists for 25 years (e.g. in the journal “Democracy and Nature” et al. )

Slicing the writing of an author in order to extract some supposed (and obviously, much-needed) “contradiction” is an unfair way to argument. You read very selectively the related thesis of Diem25 and that of Fotopoulos in favor of a globalist liberal “leftist” perspective, because F., -if you read as a whole the para you mention and not selectively,- criticizes the very fact that Varoufakis’ “problem” and rationale with these institutions is that they comprise of…”unelected ‘technocrats'” -and not the very nature of these institutions that inherently don’t give space for democratic decision making (political and economic and cultural, as Fotopoulos stresses). And this because they impose concentration of economic and other power–this is something which has little to do with the question whether their technocrats are “elected” or not as you simplistically miscontrue F. thesis. This is why F. stresses that the very issue of Varoufakis’ manifesto rationale is that it deliberately neglects…

For some reason the complete para from Fotopoulos’ article that I am trying to quote is not showing up and is constantly “waiting for moderation”. I have not entered any indentation etc., so I can’t understand why it is not appearing. At least is it possible that it can be moderated and approved by the administrator? Thanks.

“…who the elites exercising economic power are and what their role in manipulating the decision-making process of the EU. That is, there is not a single word about the Transnational Corporations (TNCs), particularly those of European origin like the European Round Table of Industrialists, which consists of the main Transnational Corporations (TNCs) running the EU.4
Similarly, there is no mention of the various international economic institutions which are controlled by the Transnational Elite5 (i.e. the elites that are based in the G7 countries), namely the EU, WTO, IMF and World Bank, and their role – behind the scenes – in determining the EU’s decisions (economic and political as well as cultural).
In fact, the Manifesto does everything possible to stress the supposedly purely political nature of the “democracy” (which it mostly identifies with human rights!), as when it points out that
“the European Union was an exceptional achievement…proving that it was possible to create a shared framework of human rights across a continent that was, not long ago, home to murderous chauvinism, racism and barbarity”.
Even when the Manifesto tries to allude to economic elites, again it does not put the blame on the vastly unequal distribution of economic power on which the EU elites thrive, but on the unequal distribution of political power which, supposedly, makes it possible for the economic elites to exercise their power”

That was for a misrepresentation of the article.

The rest of the “arguments” GlobalMisanthrope used is comprised of a series of unfortunate aphorisms and generalizations, which show the commentator has no clue of Fotopoulos’ work. e.g. As about democracy (which only has a meaning if it is also economic), this is not an “idea” someone came up with in a dreamy night. There is the historical tradition of autonomy/democracy which has been progressed through the social movements for centuries. F. has tried to advance it theoretically, with references to existing tendencies and according to the developments of our era (globalization etc.) into a new emancipatory project, the Inclusive Democracy project. All this came after loads of dialogue and contemplation with radical socialist libertarian thinkers and activists for 25 years (e.g. in the journal “Democracy and Nature” et al. )

The single biggest issue is that the rising left is the same champagne left that has embraced the EU as some kind of pan-European peace and brotherhood project.

They are willfully blind to the disruption it cases to the workers left, because they themselves are of academic backgrounds, and thus can set up shop anywhere they have a data connection and their credit card is accepted.

This makes them perfect pawns for finance right that wants EU’s “free trade” so that they can crush unions and squirrel away the wealth in tax havens.

“The EU as some kind of pan-European peace and brotherhood project” turned into a maximum financial systemic risk and contagion project. Why isn’t it OK for the “nation state” to act as a defacto safety firewall feature that simply makes it a whole lot tougher for the elites to screw up everything all at once?

For what it’s worth, my answer to Lambert’s question is that the forces preventing the European Union being democratised are the European Council (the committee of the elected governments of the individual countries within the union), the European Commissioners (who are appointed by the member nations’ governing parties), and the European Commission (the kind of federal civil service, who serve the European Commissioners). The only direct elections are for the European Parliament, which has no real role in deciding who is the EU’s governing executive.

I would say that of these the biggest culprits are the European Council – the elected governments of the member nations who have a vested interest in preventing Europe-wide democratic structures forming, in particular directly-elected EU political leaders. The British Government have always fought for the EU to be a negotiation between national governments rather than a democracy with directly elected politicians with a Europe-wide mandate.

You’re right about the institutions at the heart of the dearth of democracy in the EU and EZ. It was by design. The whole European project was about vested financial interests with a fig leaf of socially progressive aspects that successfully camouflaged the underlying intent.

The EU was anti-democratic at its very foundational level. YV is thus incorrect to speak of a “re”-democratization.

I support any serious moves towards transparency. However I think such moves, to be effective, must start at the local and national levels (as much corruption starts at these levels), with local/national passion and commitment to transparency at these levels first, rather than from what feels like a top-down approach.